Thanks, Russell, for mentioning this. I wonder if this is a new addition to earth's iron and carbon cycle understanding. If the meteorite dustfall is 12% iron, falls 70% on oceans, of which 20% are HNLC oceans, then we might expect this to supply (20,000 * 12% * 14% =) 336 tonnes of iron dust, thoroughly dispersed, to HNLC areas. At an extended Redfield ratio estimated to be C:N:P:Fe = 106:16:1:~0.001, sealife in HNLC areas can be expected to fix (336 * 106 * 1,000 =) 35.6 million tonnes of carbon per year as a result, or, measured in carbon dioxide, (35.6E6 * 44/12 =) 131 million tonnes of CO2 removed.
Brian On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:45:04 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz / Bright Water wrote: > > The cosmos seems to have a hands on policy with regard to the "pristine" > ocean. > > The annual micrometeorite dust flux exceeds 20,000 tonnes, and macroscopic > meteorites average roughly 12 % metallic irom containing 4-12% nickel , > some 73% of which lands in Earth's oceans. > > As this flux accordingly exceeds that from marine corrosion of man-made > iron ships and structures by several orders of magnitude , and the > biogeochemical cycle of iron dwarfs both of these sources, It is hard to > understand why opponents of the proposed iron experiments presume to > advertise them as existential threats. > > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 12:11:23 AM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: >> >> For some perspective on why we haven't converted ocean deserts to C >> sinks, see these early arguments from some very influential oceanographic >> heavyweights >> http://www.bio.miami.edu/prince/Chisholm.pdf >> >> Ken and I offered an alternative to this "hands off the ocean" view >> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5553/275.4.full but to little >> effect. >> >> Now that we've learned that land biology manipulations aren't going to >> singelhandley save our bacon (or the ocean): >> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2016EF000469/asset/eft2203.pdf?v=1&t=j3pbjnzv&s=8ecb4ce810928afd86afbe71a43e4c644cb0149a >> is it time yet to revisit what the other 70% of the Earth's surface and >> 99% of it's livable volume might have to offer? Or shall the false concept >> of preserving a "still pristine" ocean remain the enemy of research into >> potentially planet-saving actions? >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Brian Cady <brianc...@gmail.com> >> *To:* geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2017 5:17 AM >> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy >> >> Perhaps it will help to emphasize the scale of the OIF opportunity. It >> takes energy to fix air's carbon, and sunlight is a most sustainable energy >> source. Much earth-incident sunlight is already used by life on earth, but >> desert areas as well as High Nutrient - Low Chlorophyll ocean (HNLC) areas >> both have low productivity. Deserts cover 10% of earth’s dry land, while >> HNLC waters stretch across 1/5th of the oceans, Dry land covers nearly 30% >> of earth, while water covers about 70%. 10% of 30% is 3%; 20% of 70% is >> 14%, 4.8-fold more, hence, opportunities for engaging sunlight energy in >> carbon reduction in HNLC waters may exceed those in deserts. Providing >> trace iron to HNLC areas may be the least expensive carbon fix, and, as >> Russell Weitz points out, we're already doing it unintentionally through >> ship rusting, as well as through combustion of iron-containing fuel in >> ships, etc. that cross HNLC areas. >> >> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz / Bright Water >> wrote: >> >> Let me repeat the essence of what I wrote in response to Jeff in Nature-- >> >> Marine corrosion results in every unprotected square meter of a steel >> ship's immersed surface sheding an average of 8 g/m2 or more of iron a >> year. The average laden vessel- a 30,000 tonne Handymax, has an immersed >> surface of ~8,000 m2, and large containerships and tankers run up to 2 >> hectares each. so each ship may be expected to shed roughly six to >> twentty kg a year. As the world fleetin service exceeds 10,000 such ships, >> iron fertilization in the sea lanes is already in the range of 60 to 200 >> tonnes of iron.. not counting smaller but more numerous craft, many >> correctly classified as 'rustbuckets, ' sunken vessells and iron wharfage >> and coastal protection. >> >> If as little as a few % of the immersed steel has been imperfectly >> maintained ,the 10 tonne release criterion has been met or exceeded >> -annually, for roughly the last 100 years- >> >> >> >> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 3:11:24 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> >> https://www.nature.com/news/ iron-dumping-ocean-experiment- >> sparks-controversy-1.22031 >> <https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031> >> >> Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy >> Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in >> Chile, but researchers doubt its motives. >> >> - Jeff Tollefson >> >> <https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031#auth-1> >> >> 23 May 2017 >> Article tools >> >> - PDF >> >> <http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.22031!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/545393a.pdf> >> - Rights & Permissions >> >> <https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Jeff+Tollefson&title=Iron-dumping+ocean+experiment+sparks+controversy&publisherName=NPG&contentID=10.1038%2F545393a&publicationDate=05%2F23%2F2017&publication=Nature+News> >> >> Blickwinkel/Alamy >> Phytoplankton need iron to make energy by photosynthesis. >> Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop tonnes >> of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, >> the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it >> wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 >> project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium >> on commercial ocean fertilization. >> The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada, says that >> it is seeking permits from the Chilean government to release up to 10 >> tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of Coquimbo as early >> as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the organization grew >> out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions of Vancouver, >> that has sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some researchers >> suspect that the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an >> unproven and potentially harmful activity. >> “They claim that by producing more phytoplankton, they could help the >> recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo Ulloa, director of the Millennium >> Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, Chile. “We don’t see any evidence >> to support that claim.” >> Related stories >> >> - Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods >> <https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/530153a> >> - Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire >> <https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2015.16887> >> - Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan >> <https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/516020a> >> >> More related stories >> <https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031#related-links> >> Tensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute went public >> with their concerns in response to Chilean media reports on the project. >> The government has since requested input from the Chilean Academy of >> Science, and the institute is organizing a forum on the project and related >> research on 25 May, at a marine-sciences meeting in Valparaíso, Chile. The >> Oceaneos foundation, which declined an invitation, has accused the >> scientists of improperly classifying its work as geoengineering, rather >> than ocean restoration. Oceaneos president Michael Riedijk says that his >> team wants to work with Chilean scientists and will make all the data from >> its experiment public. The foundation plans to hold its own forum later, >> but if scientists aren’t willing to engage, he says, “we’ll just move on >> without them”. >> Researchers worldwide have conducted 13 major iron-fertilization >> experiments in the open ocean since 1990. All have sought to test whether >> stimulating >> phytoplankton growth >> <http://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028> >> can >> increase the amount of carbon dioxide that the organisms pull out of the >> atmosphere and deposit in the deep ocean when they die. Determining how >> much carbon is sequestered during such experiments has proved difficult, >> however, and scientists have raised concerns about potential adverse >> effects, such as toxic algal blooms. In 2008, the United Nations Convention >> on Biological Diversity put in place a moratorium on all >> ocean-fertilization projects >> <https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080603/full/453704b.html> apart from >> small ones in coastal waters. Five years later, the London Convention on >> ocean pollution adopted rules for evaluating such studies. >> Because Oceaneos’s planned experiment would take place in Chilean waters, >> it is allowed under those rules. Riedijk says that the foundation will >> voluntarily follow international protocols for such studies; it is unclear >> whether that will allay fears that the group is promoting an unproven >> technology, rather than conducting basic research. >> >> “If they want to partner with academics, then surely transparency is >> their best foot forward.” >> >> Philip Boyd, a marine ecologist at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, >> Australia, wants to see the foundation publish research based on lab >> experiments before heading out into the field. “If they are a >> not-for-profit scientific venture that wants to partner with academics, >> then surely transparency is their best foot forward,” he says. >> Oceaneos’s links to a 2012 iron-fertilization project off the coast of >> British Columbia, Canada, have made some researchers wary. In that project, >> US entrepreneur Russ George convinced a Haida Nation village to pursue iron >> fertilization to boost salmon populations, with the potential to sell >> carbon credits based on the amount of CO2 that would be sequestered in >> the ocean. News of the plan broke after project organizers had dumped >> around 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into the open ocean. In the years since, >> scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked. >> Riedijk says he was intrigued when he read about the Haida experiment in >> 2013, and contacted one of its organizers, Jason McNamee. McNamee later >> served as chief operating officer of Oceaneos Environmental Solutions — >> which Riedijk co-founded — before leaving the company last year. >> Despite the Haida project’s problems, Riedijk says that ocean >> fertilization merits further research: “If this actually does work, it does >> have global implications.” Oceaneos Environ-mental Solutions has developed >> an iron compound that can be consumed efficiently by phytoplankton, he >> adds, but he declined to release details. Riedijk also says that the >> foundation is working on a method to trace the movement of iron up the food >> chain and into fish populations. >> In the meantime, scientists say that it will be difficult to get solid >> data from the Oceaneos foundation’s planned experiment. The geology off the >> Chilean coast, and the patterns of currents there, create a mosaic of low- >> and high-iron waters. Anchovies, horse mackerel and other fish move freely >> between these areas. >> And adding iron could shift the location and timing of phytoplankton >> blooms to favour fast-growing species, says Adrian Marchetti, a biological >> oceanographer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. One of >> those, the diatom *Pseudo-nitzschia*, produces domoic acid, a neurotoxin >> that can kill mammals and birds. Oceaneos’s experiment will probably >> increase plankton growth in low-iron waters, Marchetti says, “but it’s not >> to say that that is actually good for the higher levels of the food chain”. >> Nature 545, 393–394 (25 May 2017) doi :10.1038/545393a >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
